Is the illegality a violent crime? Most definitely! robbing a bank to get the money to pay off the credit card? But not like this

Or a nonviolent crime, like embezzlement, fraud, or data manipulation??

As a result of this action, would the credit card company willingly? No and knowingly? But yes to this mark the account paid? have they been fooled? or manipulated? You could say yes to this as well, depending on your point-of-view into doing so?

So the perp extorted the credit card company into zeroing his account with a threat of violence.

Was what he threatened the silly thing? ("I'll mail you envelopes of tapioca puding and gum up all your mail handling machines...?" ? was it an absurd idea in itself? ("If you don't zero my account I'll shoot myself!"?) was it silly that the credit card company gave in?

Was the threat made toward the company? toward one or more of its specific personel? toward the general public? toward one or more specific persons not directly connected to the company? towards the perp himself? towards one or more animal? towards a physical object? towards a place?

was the clearing the account a side effect of the criminal threat - possibly the only positive outcome of the whole venture? - for example: If the perps threatened a country with terrorist intentions, then the government would freeze or close down their accounts - and possibly cancel credit card bills as a side effect.

So the perp extorted the credit card company into zeroing his account with a threat of violence. Well, yes and no....

Was what he threatened the silly thing? ("I'll mail you envelopes of tapioca puding and gum up all your mail handling machines...?" ? No was it an absurd idea in itself? That depends on your point-of-view... ("If you don't zero my account I'll shoot myself!"?) But nothing like this was it silly that the credit card company gave in? No. I guess if I was the credit card company, I would have zeroed it out too. But beware lurking FA!

Was the threat made toward the company? This toward one or more of its specific personel? This as well toward the general public? toward one or more specific persons not directly connected to the company? towards the perp himself? towards one or more animal? towards a physical object? This too, for svv of "object" towards a place? This is perhaps more accurate than "object"

Zenith

was the clearing the account a side effect of the criminal threat - possibly the only positive outcome of the whole venture? No -- the "criminal threat" was put into action for the specific purpose of clearing the account.- for example: If the perps threatened a country with terrorist intentions, then the government would freeze or close down their accounts - and possibly cancel credit card bills as a side effect. Sorry, nothing like this.

So the credit card company knowingly but not really willingly zeroed his account, but he didn't exactly extort them into doing it? Could they have chosen not to zero out his account? Or was the zeroing out an unavoidable side effect of preventing? repairing? the damage that he threatened? (Hence, knowingly but not exactly willingly?)

Did he actually set the threat into motion at any time?

The svv 'object'/more accurately 'place' that the threat was made against -- the company's headquarters building? main offices? computer center?

You must enjoy watching me chase my tail! It could be that I'm being unnecessarily cruel with this puzzle. Once I have some more time, I'll post a recap/refocus/hints to help move this puzzle along.

So the credit card company knowingly but not really willingly zeroed his account, but he didn't exactly extort them into doing it? Well, yes and no Could they have chosen not to zero out his account? Depends on your definition of choice: if a robber points a gun at you and asks for your money, you technically speaking still have a choice to give him the money or not. Now mind you, most people would consider that as having no choice. Your own mileage may vary... Or was the zeroing out an unavoidable side effect of preventing? This repairing? the damage that he threatened? (Hence, knowingly but not exactly willingly?)

Did he actually set the threat into motion at any time? No -- hence, no physical damage

The svv 'object'/more accurately 'place' that the threat was made against -- the company's headquarters building? This is close enough main offices? computer center?

The specific person -- the CEO? board of directors? the stockholders? I assume whoever was working in company HQ.

Nah, s'okay. I'm not sure that I'm getting the info I need. But I'm also not sure that I'm asking for the info I need, either...

Ok, then the threat was a threat of physical damage?

Damage directly to the building, and directly to the people? Damage directly to the building, and indirectly to the people? Damage indirectly to the building, and directly to the people? Damage indirectly to the building, and indirectly to the people within the building? No damage to the building, but damage directly to the people? No damage to the building, and damage indirectly to the people? No damage to the people, and damage directly to the building? No damage to the people, and damage indirectly to the building?

I think that's all the permutations.

If Perp had carried out his threat, would it have destroyed the HQ building? contaminated it? rendered one or more system non-functioning? (like shutting down the power to it? or disrupting the phone service?)

Would it have required an evacuation of the building?

Would it have required cleaning to make the building usable again? repair to the building? a new building all together?

Would it have harmed? killed? inconvienienced?

some? most? all? of the people working there?

made them sick? prevented them from working, but not physically harmed them?

Some sort of gas? biological agent? Did Perp threaten to set up a sniper post somewhere outside the building and pick off employees as they entered? exited?

Nah, s'okay. I'm not sure that I'm getting the info I need. But I'm also not sure that I'm asking for the info I need, either... Well, keep at it...I'm sure you will get to the bottom of the matter eventually. :

Ok, then the threat was a threat of physical damage? Yes

Damage directly to the building, and directly to the people? YesDamage directly to the building, and indirectly to the people? Damage indirectly to the building, and directly to the people? Damage indirectly to the building, and indirectly to the people within the building? No damage to the building, but damage directly to the people? No damage to the building, and damage indirectly to the people? No damage to the people, and damage directly to the building? No damage to the people, and damage indirectly to the building?

I think that's all the permutations.

If Perp had carried out his threat, would it have destroyed the HQ building? Most definitely this!contaminated it? rendered one or more system non-functioning? (like shutting down the power to it? or disrupting the phone service?)

Would it have required an evacuation of the building? To save lives? Yes, but there'd likely not be enough time...

Would it have required cleaning to make the building usable again? repair to the building? a new building all together? This

Would it have harmed? Thiskilled? and thisinconvienienced?

some? most? all? of the people working there? This is a bit tough to answer....really depends on how psychotic the perp is (you'll understand once more is revealed).

made them sick? See aboveprevented them from working, but not physically harmed them? See above

Some sort of gas? Nobiological agent? NoDid Perp threaten to set up a sniper post somewhere outside the building and pick off employees as they entered? exited? No

So he threatens to destroy the building, without threatening the use of a bomb. Does 'bomb' mean all explosives or just that rigged with a timing and/or manual trigger? Or does he intend to destroy the building with something completely different, say, driving a bulldozer into the building/foundations? if no to definition of bomb, perhaps he could to do both: drive a petrol tanker into the underground parking lot, and then shoot it with a high-powered rifle from a safe distance.

Is any type of vehicle used to do the damage? to prepare to do the damage?

Would Perp need to be able to get into the building to do the damage? Could he do the damage from the outside? Would it be obvious what he was doing as he prepared to do the damage? If it wouldn't be obvious, would his actions be suspicious? or would they appear harmless?

So he threatens to destroy the building, without threatening the use of a bomb. Yes Does 'bomb' mean all explosives or just that rigged with a timing and/or manual trigger? I was thinking of the latter one. But as far as I know, bombs are only a subset of possible explosive devices. For example, a hand grenade may be considered an explosive device, but I don't think too many people would consider it a bomb. Or does he intend to destroy the building with something completely different, Yes say, driving a bulldozer into the building/foundations? Not this, but this is actually not too far from the right forest... if no to definition of bomb, perhaps he could to do both: drive a petrol tanker into the underground parking lot, and then shoot it with a high-powered rifle from a safe distance. LOL...no, not like that, but believe it or not, the level of craziness is perhaps about the same!

Rabrab

Is any type of vehicle used to do the damage? YES...good question!! to prepare to do the damage? So yes to this as well

Would Perp need to be able to get into the building to do the damage? NO...good question!! Could he do the damage from the outside? So YES Would it be obvious what he was doing as he prepared to do the damage? Most definitely If it wouldn't be obvious, would his actions be suspicious? or would they appear harmless?

Rabrab...again!

Would his threat sound silly at first? and only on further thought show itself to be deadly serious? Or would it clearly be serious from the start? This is a bit tough to answer. I'd say it has to depend on the mood of the intended victims. For example, if a man walks into Fort Knox and declares that he intends to take all the gold, the security detail there might think the guy is joking, is delusional, or is being deadly serious.

In this particular case, I'd imagine the people to react at first with incredulity -- it was rather extreme and unusual. But it should be very rapidly apparent that the perpetrator was being quite serious.

So the idea was to avoid paying credit car bills by utterly destroying the building that carried out the billing? or merely to create the threat to coerce the bills into being discarded? Anything like this?

So the idea was to avoid paying credit car bills by utterly destroying the building that carried out the billing? or merely to create the threat to coerce the bills into being discarded? Anything like this? This is close enough. $poilers coming soon....

TODAY'S consumer topic is: How to resolve a dispute with a large company.

If you're a typical consumer - defined as "a consumer whose mail consists mainly of offers for credit cards that he or she already has" - chances are, sooner or later, you're going to have a dispute with a large company.

You're going to call the company up, and you're going to wind up speaking with people in a department with a friendly name such as Customer Service. These people hate you.....

[snip]

..... So is there any way that you, the lowly consumer, can gain the serious attention of a large and powerful business? I am pleased to report that there is a way, which I found out about thanks to an alert reader, Jim Ganz junior, who sent me an Associated Press news report from Russia.

According to this report, a Russian electricity company got into a billing dispute with a customer and cut off the customer's electricity.

This customer happened to be a Russian army commander. So he ordered a tank to drive over to the electricity company's office and aim its gun at the windows. The electricity was turned right back on.

On behalf of consumers everywhere, I want to kiss this arsenal commander on the lips. I mean, what a great concept.

Imagine how much more seriously your complaint would be taken if you were complaining from inside an armoured vehicle capable of reducing the entire Customer Service department to tiny smoking shards.

Perhaps you are thinking: "But a tank costs several million dollars, not including floor mats. I don't have that kind of money."

Don't be silly. You're a consumer, right? You have credit cards, right?

Perhaps you are thinking: "Yes, but how am I going to pay the credit card company?"

Don't be silly. You have a tank, right?

Thanks to all to participated, and a tank to Dref for finally blasting this puzzle into bits and pieces.

Add Your Message Here

Post:

Username:

Posting Information:
This is a private posting area. Only registered users and moderators may post messages here.